benjii

Those are the rates charged by the firm, not recouped by the individuals who work for it.

You would, usually, expect Norwich Union to have security over all the subsidiary companies so ultimately the footy club money is theirs should the security be enforced. You would also often find a cash-sweep mechanism in commercial loans to a group of companies. However, the recent noises coming out of the club/SLH do seem to suggest to me that the Loan Note is on some sort of limited recourse basis.

What you on about? We're too good to go down and will walk this league next year.

Why? Where is it now?

Although funilly enough he played in two different roles last night, following substitutions, and was just as good in a withdrawn midfield role. I prefer seeing him further forward though. I agree. I hope we keep him for next season.

His first duty is to try to find a way for the company to continue as a going concern. If that can't be done his duty turns to maximising return for the creditors.

Can I just say, that there is no way in the world that Nineteen Canteen is Lord Marland. I heard Lord Marland on the radio once and he came across as fairly intelligent and articulate.

One point that is important to note is that Aviva actually seem to have been supportive and have little interest in accelerating the Loan Notes. I see no reason why, if a potential investor can show sufficient proof of funds, they would not allow the Loan Note to exist on its current terms. It is designed to be a long-term debt. It only requires something like £2m per year in repayments. The notion that a new investor MUST stump up £20m or some other lesser but large capital sum to Aviva is probably not true. Similarly, the overdraft with Barclays is unsecured I believe? Again, any new investor will be in a pretty strong position with respect to cuting a deal with them.

I feel, having taken a lot of stick this season, he deserves a thread for what was an excellent performance last night. I don't want to discuss whether the stick was justified or not but simply urge him to maintain the level of commitment, effort and composure he showed last night. If the rest of the team can up their performance to a similar level we will have no problem staying up.

Sadly, Surman had no problem whatsoever getting it over the wall!

Doubt that would have appealed to Lowe, Wilde and the Meals on Wheels brigade.

The bank would have absolutely no say whatsoever in day to day operational decisions.

Yep, he was the best player on the pitch by a long way IMO.

?

Well, yes! They could just download the annual report pdf off the SFC site! As for the relationship between SFC and the debt, that can easily be ascertained by a look at SFC Limited's charges register on Companies House. You don't need "Forensic Accountants" to do that. If the League wants to **** money up the wall though, let's let them! I doubt any forensic accountants are doing anything as a matter of urgency. As others have said, this is just a delaying tactic. We have three matches between now and this time next week. They will be hoping we are virtually down by then.

We could play hard-ball and simply refuse to give their accountants access. "Your rule says, 'x', make a decision".

Thank you.

Did you read the quote from the Beeb article? Wotte himself said we had offers for Surman and Lallana but refused to even entertain them. "Refused to negotiate".

Oh right. Ok!

To put this in context, here's something from the Beeb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7873058.stm Southampton's head coach Mark Wotte has thanked the club's board members for holding their nerve during the January transfer window. Financially-stricken Saints turned down bids for two of their main assets last month and brought two players in. Wotte told BBC Radio Solent: "I'm very happy that they didn't negotiate with the clubs that made offers for Adam Lallana or Andrew Surman." Saints signed defenders Jan Paul Saeijs and Zoltan Liptak in January. The Dutchman added: "We didn't lose one player during the window, which is a big thing for us. Everyone was expecting us to lose one or two good, talented players." "It would have been easy for them to sell another player because we need the money. But they assured me that the quality in the team is more important than the short-term finance at the moment." The board assured me that the quality in the team is more important than the short-term finance at the moment. Saints' head coach Mark Wotte

I'm not suggesting we can or should do that. It is a fact that we have turned down bids for players though and we are now insolvent due to a fairly small amount of unarranged borrowing that would have been covered by the amounts raised. That doesn't look too sharp. What were they supposed to do? Sell the players we had bids for! If the bank have unexpectedly moved the goalposts then yes, we were stitched up a bit, but nonetheless it seems very odd in hindsight that we didn't sell these players. Perhaps because if we'd done so, it wouldn't have fit in with lowe's messiah-complex total kindergarten philosophy. Who knows?

Good arguable points, but if you want to play Surman in CM and Rudi at LM then who plays LB? Mills? Or do we go three at the back and play Skacel centrally? That's a bit of a departure for so late in the season IMO. I can't think a Mills/Skacel left side is a better bet than a Skacel/Surman or a Skacel/Holmes left side at this moment in time.

Any slating that he may or may not have got would probably have been based on the assumption/belief that the situation wasn't completely, utterly, imminently, disastrously critical. If people had been aware that it was, then they would not slate. There were sound commercial reasons for not making the precise position public and so I'm not criticising over a lack of publicity, more that it seems more than a little odd that we refused bids for Lallana, Surman(?) and Dyer when the situation was this bad. When was Lowe ever influenced by fan criticism in any case (apart from when he wants to cite it retrospectively to excuse his terrible decisions)? We seem to have pinned all our hopes on someone coming in for a late bid for Euell, Saga, KD or Skacel. Given that it was obvious to most clubs that they could pick any of these up on loan in any case, is it not surprising that this didn't happen. Yes, we might have had to accept lower prices than we would otherwise like to for the younger players but if we only needed a few hundred grand to get us through to the summer then surely it would be worth it? The whole things just smacks of lazyness and is as much "head in the hand" style management as Crouch is, rightly or wrongly, sometimes accused of. I can't countenance that Lowe and Wilde's part-time meddlings have been more productive than the efforts of a highly motivated, competent, full-time CEO would have been.

:rolleyes:

I'm inclined to agree. If the answer to the question, "if all drugs were legal would the level of heroin / crack use rise significantly?" is "yes", then I think the continued illegality of drugs could be justified. If not, it seems a woefully misguided policy.